Languages don't exactly love this kind of thing, but they
can live with it. And when they do seek to eliminate it,
they do so by replacing one of the conflicting lexical
units by a synonym, not by irregular application of
an otherwise regular sound shift.

> Therefore the question is still valid - can sound changes
> be blocked by semantic necessities in Quenya?

I'll grant that such consideration might catalyse or inhibit
an instance of a sound shift in a particular word in Quenya,
provided that the irregularly derived word is still in line
with the language's phonology, incl. phonotactics. However,
when a sound is generally on its way out, its exceptional
preservation in one or two words on semantic grounds is high
on my list of things that just can't happen.

> Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off
> to disambiguation requirements?

I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,
or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.

Hello, ... Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other (Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the situation with

Message 2 of 15
, Jun 1, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello,

Carl wrote:

> There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence
> of these two particular roots. While "along side" and "against,
> opposed to, opposite" may seem impossibly disparate in sense,
> English itself shows a blending and blurring of these concepts.

Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other
(Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the
situation with 'fighting' is identical to the English. The question
however reamins - would the two roots merge on the phonemic
level or not? I would contend that it is possible that the two
roots do remain asunder. We could try and reconstruct the
earliest root as *AD-A with the meaning of 'adjunction', possibly.
It would then show divergence in later Eldarin, mainly in the
Vanyarin dialects. And we still don't know whether these could
converge _back_ in Quenya (gues it is possible they wouldn't).
Alternately, this could be a case of a hypothetic D/R variation,
similar to the alternation of D/L, referred to in XI:363.

But then, it's been a long time since I told myself not to build
grandiose theories out if a single example! The above is pretty
likely to be completely bogus :-)

I'm no expert at Persian, but as regards the first two (actually three)
examples, the syntactic properties and/or context are sufficient to make
clear which meaning is intended. As regards Quenya, clearly the
distributive properties of the two will be identical (but hey, there's
the case system which can be used for disambiguation after all!).

> Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.

Again, there are the sytactic properties ('cleave to sth.' vs. 'cleave
sth.')

[...]
OK, so we can establish that the two roots may have fallen together.
Anyone has suggestions on which cases to use with which _*ara_?
(Allative vs. Ablative? Dative vs. Ablative? Or something completely
different?)

Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single
phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

I hold it is the latter.

But evidence is scanty, and I would like to discuss this question with a
more knowledgeable company. So what would the assembly's opinion be,
taking into account the following pieces of evidence:

1) Consistent use of the word _combinations_ in Appendix E when
referring to Grades 2 and 4 seems to argue that the sequence is
biphonemic.

2) These groups were clearly considered "long" for purposes of stress in
early (and later) Sindarin, as per LR:1089 (it appears I am using a
different edition than Ivan above). This would imply that in the
structure of a word like _*periandath_ the _a_ in the penult qualifies
as a vowel followed by two consonants, ergo /nd/ is biphonemic. This
meets two objections - even early Sindarin is not Quenya (though I'd
assume the phonological workings of the two would be exceptionally
similar), and the second of a more fundamental nature. If we assume /nd/
is monophonemic, the stress would still fall on the penult in this case,
since /nd/ (be it mono- or biphonemic) is an impermissible onset, since
no word in Quenya begins with it. On yet another hand, this latter
argument could be taken as evidence for the biphonemic status of the
group in question, as the restriction could then be explained in terms
of the restriction on initial clusters in Quenya.

3) There is little reason to distinguish /nd/ from /ld/ and /rd/. The
latter are clearly biphonemic. It would then seem that a voiced stop is
in a strong position when clustered with an alveolar sonorant. It is
unclear whether /b/ shifted to /v/ after /l/ as a matter of some later
dialect, or of a regular phonological process (since it appears that the
Elves themselves did use _lb_ (LR:1095)). To clarify: /g/ shifted to a
voiced /h/ regularly in Ukrainian and southern Russian dialects,
however, there was no process of a regular voiced stop > homorganic
voiced fricative shift. The only argument to see nasalisation as
phonemically relevant attribute is its typological justification.
Otherwise, we could as well argue that /ld/ is a phoneme while /nd/ and
/rd/ are biphonemic. This doesn't seem likely at all

4) However, there are clear cases of metathesis (e.g. in the past tense
of basic verbs). A biphonemic sequence yielding a single phoneme is not
at all impossible (cf. the conduct of Slavic *tj and *dj). Why would
*_tek-ne_ yield *_tencë_? An answer might be positing not a metathesis
(i.e. not the development of two sounds), but a nasalisation of the last
consonant of a CVC- root as a phonological process a bit like the Irish
attenuation and broadening (caolú and leathnú). Such an interpretation
seems to be an argument for the monophonemic status.

Overall, I still think the biphonemic interpretation is the better one,
not the least because it is the less complex one. I am sure there is
more to it than the outline above.

> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
> Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd �g/ single
> phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

They can only be biphonemic. The question is are they coarticulated
or not? For example, Ladefoged ignores "phonemes" like [tS] and [d3]
in the IPA, in fact they aren't in the IPA, because his phonetic work
has shown that they are two sounds that are coarticulated (see
Ladefoged _A Course in Phonetics_ 1975. 4th edition). Clusters like
[mb], found in some African languages etc., are also not in the IPA
because they are coarticulated.

I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you mean
two independently articulated segments.

A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
splits into a coda and an onset:

e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].

If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

An example from English is 'judging:' /d3Ud3 + Ing/ > [d3U.d3Ing],
where /ng/ = the sound ingma, i.e. the velar nasal. In the English
example it's clear that /d3/ is coarticulated as the sound does not
split across syllable boundaries.

I don't remember if Tolkien has given us discriptions of the
syllabification of these clusters. If he hasn't then we need to
listen again to his recordings (but these maybe inaccurate as he
wasn't a native speaker of Quenya, alas).

Hello, ... Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-) ... As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of structural analysis (which And

Message 6 of 15
, Jun 7, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello,
Candon wrote:

> > Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
> > of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/
> > single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?
>
> They can only be biphonemic.

Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you
> mean two independently articulated segments.

As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
and not as a segment in the speech.

> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
> splits into a coda and an onset:
>
> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
>
> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
phonologically.

Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

>>> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
>>> of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd �g/
>>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

Candon wrote:

>> They can only be biphonemic.

Pavel wrote:

> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before its wave
has ended [S] begins.

I believe this work was started in the 50's and 60's at Edinburgh,
which perhaps means Tolkien was aware of it.

Candon wrote:

>> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulated and by biphonemic you
>> mean two independently articulated segments.

Pavel wrote:

> As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
> structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
> and not as a segment in the speech.

The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
are not).

Candon wrote:

>> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
>> splits into a coda and an onset:
>> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
>> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
>> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

Pavel wrote:

> I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
> as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
> pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
> permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
> phonologically.

I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/ and
it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

Pavel wrote:

> Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
> the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
> syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
> start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true. But let's
say it is. What about the cluster /nt/? /t/ is allowed in onset
position. So the syllabification of a word like _tintalle_ > 1.
[tin.tal.le], or 2. [tint.al.le] will help us decide if clusters are
coarticulated or not.

Perhaps we can make an argument based on Tolkien's asthetic tastes to
help us decide. It's clear that Tolkien was interested in creating a
euphonic language. Which is the more euphonic syllabification of
Quenya _sinda_? 1. [sin.da] or 2. [sind.a] It seems clear to me
that (1) is more euphonic, and it is easier to articulate (the same
can be said of _tintalle_(1)above. Ease of articulation also seems
to have been important to Tolkien (cf. /n/ + /s/ > [ss] (e.g.
_Elessar_).

Notice also that when segments assimilate (for ease of
articulation) they don't disappear. This would indicate that both
segments [ss] in _Elessar_ are pronounced (as compared with
_*elesar_.

If both segments are indeed pronounced, this in turn seems to
indicate that the cluster is _not_ coarticulated as the best way to
make [ss] salient (i.e. perceivable) is to split the cluster [s.s]

If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

Hello, I m still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless. Candon wrote: [...] ... But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)

Message 8 of 15
, Jun 8, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello,

I'm still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless.

Candon wrote:
[...]

> The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
> convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
> coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
> are not).

But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)

> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary
> > test, as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which
> > was pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was
> > still permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a
> > cluster phonologically.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/
> and it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

I'd say that the palatalized and labilaized sounds are precisely
monophonemic.

> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
> word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true. But let's
> say it is. What about the cluster /nt/? /t/ is allowed in onset
> position.

Good point, but it is obvious that the unvoiced stops have much
fewer phonotactical restrcitions imposed on them than the voiced
ones.

On the ohter hand, this example amply demonstrates that /mp nt ng/
are biphonemic sequences. This would mean that plosives
(phonemically) present a rather strange system /p/ ~ /b/ ~ /mb/.
Such a system is highly untypological. The only structurally
analogous situation I can think is the traditional PIE
reconstruction (substitute aspiration ofr nasalisation). But that
may precisely have been the inspiration! It would be "very
Tolkien" :-)

[...]

> If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
> had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
> articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
> are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

Still, I do not see any direct correlation between coarticulation
and monopohnemic status.

> The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
> wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before
> its wave has ended [S] begins.

Acoustic phonetics is not about phonemes at all. Whatever sequence
of wave forms the language treats as a phoneme is by virtue of that
fact a phoneme.

> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
> > as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
> > pronounced as a cluster [...], was still permitted word-initially,
> > demonstrating it was not a cluster phonologically.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/
> and it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

English allows word-initial (and generally syllable-initial)
clusters. Quenya doesn't. So the evidence of English isn't
automatically relevant to Quenya.

> Pavel wrote:
> > Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
> > the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
> > syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
> > start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

[...]

> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
> word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true.

As a matter of fact, it does not. Think of Finnish medial /ht/.
It has to split as /h/+/t/, because a cluster can be neither an
onset nor a coda, but we have to live with the fact that /h/ can
be a coda of a non-final syllable (though not a final one).

--Ivan

fr3dr1k_s

... Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the word coo . The

Message 10 of 15
, Jun 8, 2002

0 Attachment

Candon McLean wrote:

>>> They can only be biphonemic.
>> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)
>The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows
>overlapping wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and
>before its wave has ended [S] begins.

Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For
example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the
word "coo". The labialized feature of the vowel is anticipated in
the realization of the velar stop, [k^w]. That would be an example
of coarticulation. But "biphonemic" of course refers to a
sequence of two phonemes. These phonemes may or may not
be further analysed into sequences of sounds on the phonetic
level, but that is irrelevant here. It is important to remember that
phonemes, while the smallest units of speech *phonologically*
speaking, are not necessarily "atomic" *phonetically* speaking
but may be broken down into smaller segments of sound.
Affricates are sequences of homorganic sounds on the phonetic
level that make up single units on the phonological level: they
are phonemes (no scare quotes). In his _Course in Phonetics_
earlier referred to, Ladefoged points out that "From the point of
view of a phonologist considering the sound patterns of English,
the palato-alveolar affricates are plainly single units" (3rd ed.,
63). I don't have the 4th ed. though.

Sorry if I missed your point and just reiterated the obvious.

/Fredrik Ström

Candon McLean

Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn t relevant to phonemes (or something similar to that effect). I agree. My mistake. Indeed sounds like

Message 11 of 15
, Jun 8, 2002

0 Attachment

Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn't relevant to
phonemes (or something similar to that effect).

I agree. My mistake. Indeed sounds like [tS] are phonemes.

The point I was trying to make is that these kind of complex phonemes
with coarticulated sounds can't be split, and so if we wanted to test
whether Quenya clusters are phonemic or not, we should be able to do
so by focusing on the coarticulated properties of these sounds (like
affricates, etc).